Whilst brother Habib talks about Oil, I wonder who would protect Saudi Arabia, if there was an absolute need of oil and the Saudis refused.
Who would protect Mecca?

The solution for you would be a one-state solution, with two political parties representing the Palsetinians:

The Islamic Dawa Party and HAMAS led by Khaled Mashaal

http://www.google.se/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBR_enSE222SE222&q=Jews+for+Allah

versus Manhigut Yehudit, led by Moshe Feiglin

One State, which the Dawa Party - four wives per man, full time, would overpopulate within one generation.

Shall we leave it there?
> 
> From: Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2007/05/29 ti PM 02:18:24 CEST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Ämne: FWD: Zionism as a Racist Ideology
> 
> Zionism as a Racist Ideology
> Reviving an Old Theme to Prevent Palestinian Ethnicide
> By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
> 
> During a presentation on the Palestinian-Israeli situation in 2001, an 
> American-Israeli acquaintance of ours began with a typical attack on 
> the Palestinians. Taking the overused line that "Palestinians never 
> miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," he asserted snidely that, 
> if only the Palestinians had had any decency and not been so all-fired 
> interested in pushing the Jews into the sea in 1948, they would have 
> accepted the UN partition of Palestine. Those Palestinians who became 
> refugees would instead have remained peacefully in their homes, and the 
> state of Palestine could in the year 2001 be celebrating the 53rd 
> anniversary of its independence. Everything could have been sweetness 
> and light, he contended, but here the Palestinians were, then a year 
> into a deadly intifada, still stateless, still hostile, and still 
> trying, he claimed, to push the Jews into the sea.
> 
> It was a common line but with a new and intriguing twist: what if the 
> Palestinians had accepted partition; would they in fact have lived in a 
> state at peace since 1948? It was enough to make the audience stop and 
> think. But later in the talk, the speaker tripped himself up by 
> claiming, in a tone of deep alarm, that Palestinian insistence on the 
> right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced when Israel was 
> created would spell the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. He did 
> not realize the inherent contradiction in his two assertions (until we 
> later pointed it out to him, with no little glee). You cannot have it 
> both ways, we told him: you cannot claim that, if Palestinians had not 
> left the areas that became Israel in 1948, they would now be living 
> peaceably, some inside and some alongside a Jewish-majority state, and 
> then also claim that, if they returned now, Israel would lose its 
> Jewish majority and its essential identity as a Jewish state.*
> 
> This exchange, and the massive propaganda effort by and on behalf of 
> Israel to demonstrate the threat to Israel's Jewish character posed by 
> the Palestinians' right of return, actually reveal the dirty little 
> secret of Zionism. In its drive to establish and maintain a state in 
> which Jews are always the majority, Zionism absolutely required that 
> Palestinians, as non-Jews, be made to leave in 1948 and never be 
> allowed to return. The dirty little secret is that this is blatant 
> racism.
> 
> But didn't we finish with that old Zionism-is-racism issue over a 
> decade ago, when in 1991 the UN repealed a 1975 General Assembly 
> resolution that defined Zionism as "a form of racism or racial 
> discrimination"? Hadn't we Americans always rejected this resolution as 
> odious anti-Semitism, and didn't we, under the aegis of the first Bush 
> administration, finally prevail on the rest of the world community to 
> agree that it was not only inaccurate but downright evil to label 
> Zionism as racist? Why bring it up again, now?
> 
> The UN General Assembly based its 1975 anti-Zionist resolution on the 
> UN's own definition of racial discrimination, adopted in 1965. 
> According to the International Convention on the Elimination of All 
> Forms of Racial Discrimination, racial discrimination is "any 
> distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, 
> colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or 
> effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or 
> exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms 
> in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of 
> public life." As a definition of racism and racial discrimination, this 
> statement is unassailable and, if one is honest about what Zionism is 
> and what it signifies, the statement is an accurate definition of 
> Zionism. But in 1975, in the political atmosphere prevailing at the 
> time, putting forth such a definition was utterly self-defeating.
> 
> So would a formal resolution be in today's political atmosphere. But 
> enough has changed over the last decade or more that talk about Zionism 
> as a system that either is inherently racist or at least fosters racism 
> is increasingly possible and increasingly necessary. Despite the 
> vehement knee-jerk opposition to any such discussion throughout the 
> United States, serious scholars elsewhere and serious Israelis have 
> begun increasingly to examine Zionism critically, and there is much 
> greater receptivity to the notion that no real peace will be forged in 
> Palestine-Israel unless the bases of Zionism are examined and in some 
> way altered. It is for this reason that honestly labeling Zionism as a 
> racist political philosophy is so necessary: unless the world's, and 
> particularly the United States', blind support for Israel as an 
> exclusivist Jewish state is undermined, unless the blind acceptance of 
> Zionism as a noble ideology is undermined, and unless it is recognized 
> that Israel's drive to maintain dominion over the occupied Palestinian 
> territories is motivated by an exclusivist, racist ideology, no one 
> will ever gain the political strength or the political will necessary 
> to force Israel to relinquish territory and permit establishment of a 
> truly sovereign and independent Palestinian state in a part of 
> Palestine.
> 
> Recognizing Zionism's Racism
> 
> A racist ideology need not always manifest itself as such, and, if the 
> circumstances are right, it need not always actually practice racism to 
> maintain itself. For decades after its creation, the circumstances were 
> right for Israel. If one forgot, as most people did, the fact that 
> 750,000 Palestinians (non-Jews) had left their homeland under duress, 
> thus making room for a Jewish-majority state, everyone could accept 
> Israel as a genuine democracy, even to a certain extent for that small 
> minority of Palestinians who had remained after 1948. That minority was 
> not large enough to threaten Israel's Jewish majority; it faced 
> considerable discrimination, but because Israeli Arabs could vote, this 
> discrimination was viewed not as institutional, state-mandated racism 
> but as the kind of discrimination, deplorable but not 
> institutionalized, faced by blacks in the United States. The occupation 
> of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, with their two million 
> (soon to become more than three million) Palestinian inhabitants, was 
> seen to be temporary, its end awaiting only the Arabs' readiness to 
> accept Israel's existence.
> 
> In these "right" circumstances, the issue of racism rarely arose, and 
> the UN's labeling of Israel's fundamental ideology as racist came 
> across to Americans and most westerners as nasty and vindictive. 
> Outside the third world, Israel had come to be regarded as the 
> perpetual innocent, not aggressive, certainly not racist, and desirous 
> of nothing more than a peace agreement that would allow it to mind its 
> own business inside its original borders in a democratic state. By the 
> time the Zionism-is-racism resolution was rescinded in 1991, even the 
> PLO had officially recognized Israel's right to exist in peace inside 
> its 1967 borders, with its Jewish majority uncontested. In fact, this 
> very acceptance of Israel by its principal adversary played no small 
> part in facilitating the U.S. effort to garner support for overturning 
> the resolution. (The fact of U.S. global dominance in the wake of the 
> first Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union earlier in 1991, 
> and the atmosphere of optimism about prospects for peace created by the 
> Madrid peace conference in October also played a significant part in 
> winning over a majority of the UN when the Zionism resolution was 
> brought to a vote of the General Assembly in December.)
> 
> Realities are very different today, and a recognition of Zionism's 
> racist bases, as well as an understanding of the racist policies being 
> played out in the occupied territories are essential if there is to be 
> any hope at all of achieving a peaceful, just, and stable resolution of 
> the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The egg of Palestine has been 
> permanently scrambled, and it is now increasingly the case that, as 
> Zionism is recognized as the driving force in the occupied territories 
> as well as inside Israel proper, pre-1967 Israel can no longer be 
> considered in isolation. It can no longer be allowed simply to go its 
> own way as a Jewish-majority state, a state in which the circumstances 
> are "right" for ignoring Zionism's fundamental racism.
> 
> As Israel increasingly inserts itself into the occupied territories, 
> and as Israeli settlers, Israeli settlements, and Israeli-only roads 
> proliferate and a state infrastructure benefiting only Jews takes over 
> more and more territory, it becomes no longer possible to ignore the 
> racist underpinnings of the Zionist ideology that directs this 
> enterprise. It is no longer possible today to wink at the permanence of 
> Zionism's thrust beyond Israel's pre-1967 borders. It is now clear that 
> Israel's control over the occupied territories is, and has all along 
> been intended to be, a drive to assert exclusive Jewish control, taming 
> the Palestinians into submission and squeezing them into ever smaller, 
> more disconnected segments of land or, failing that, forcing them to 
> leave Palestine altogether. It is totally obvious to anyone who spends 
> time on the ground in Palestine-Israel that the animating force behind 
> the policies of the present and all past Israeli governments in Israel 
> and in the occupied West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem has always been 
> a determination to assure the predominance of Jews over Palestinians. 
> Such policies can only be described as racist, and we should stop 
> trying any longer to avoid the word.
> 
> When you are on the ground in Palestine, you can see Zionism 
> physically imprinted on the landscape. Not only can you see that there 
> are settlements, built on land confiscated from Palestinians, where 
> Palestinians may not live. Not only can you see roads in the occupied 
> territories, again built on land taken from Palestinians, where 
> Palestinians may not drive. Not only can you observe that water in the 
> occupied territories is allocated, by Israeli governmental authorities, 
> so inequitably that Israeli settlers are allocated five times the 
> amount per capita as are Palestinians and, in periods of drought, 
> Palestinians stand in line for drinking water while Israeli settlements 
> enjoy lush gardens and swimming pools. Not only can you stand and watch 
> as Israeli bulldozers flatten Palestinian olive groves and other 
> agricultural land, destroy Palestinian wells, and demolish Palestinian 
> homes to make way for the separation wall that Israel is constructing 
> across the length and breadth of the West Bank. The wall fences off 
> Palestinians from Israelis, supposedly to provide greater security for 
> Israelis but in fact in order to cage Palestinians, to define a border 
> for Israel that will exclude a maximum number of Palestinians.
> 
> But, if this is not enough to demonstrate the inherent racism of 
> Israel's occupation, you can also drive through Palestinian towns and 
> Palestinian neighborhoods in and near Jerusalem and see what is perhaps 
> the most cruelly racist policy in Zionism's arsenal: house demolitions, 
> the preeminent symbol of Zionism's drive to maintain Jewish 
> predominance. Virtually every street has a house or houses reduced to 
> rubble, one floor pancaked onto another or simply a pile of broken 
> concrete bulldozed into an incoherent heap. Jeff Halper, founder and 
> head of the non-governmental Israeli Committee Against House 
> Demolitions (ICAHD), an anthropologist and scholar of the occupation, 
> has observed that Zionist and Israeli leaders going back 80 years have 
> all conveyed what he calls "The Message" to Palestinians. The Message, 
> Halper says, is "Submit. Only when you abandon your dreams for an 
> independent state of your own, and accept that Palestine has become the 
> Land of Israel, will we relent [i.e., stop attacking Palestinians]." 
> The deeper meaning of The Message, as carried by the bulldozers so 
> ubiquitous in targeted Palestinian neighborhoods today, is that "You 
> [Palestinians] do not belong here. We uprooted you from your homes in 
> 1948and now we will uproot you from all of the Land of Israel."
> 
> In the end, Halper says, the advance of Zionism has been a process of 
> displacement, and house demolitions have been "at the center of the 
> Israeli struggle against the Palestinians" since 1948. Halper 
> enumerates a steady history of destruction: in the first six years of 
> Israel's existence, it systematically razed 418 Palestinian villages 
> inside Israel, fully 85 percent of the villages existing before 1948; 
> since the occupation began in 1967, Israel has demolished 11,000 
> Palestinian homes. More homes are now being demolished in the path of 
> Israel's "separation wall." It is estimated that more than 4,000 homes 
> have been destroyed in the last two years alone.
> 
> The vast majority of these house demolitions, 95 percent, have nothing 
> whatever to do with fighting terrorism, but are designed specifically 
> to displace non-Jews and assure the advance of Zionism. In Jerusalem, 
> from the beginning of the occupation of the eastern sector of the city 
> in 1967, Israeli authorities have designed zoning plans specifically to 
> prevent the growth of the Palestinian population. Maintaining the 
> "Jewish character" of the city at the level existing in 1967 (71 
> percent Jewish, 29 percent Palestinian) required that Israel draw 
> zoning boundaries to prevent Palestinian expansion beyond existing 
> neighborhoods, expropriate Palestinian-owned lands, confiscate the 
> Jerusalem residency permits of any Palestinian who cannot prove that 
> Jerusalem is his "center of life," limit city services to Palestinian 
> areas, limit development in Palestinian neighborhoods, refuse to issue 
> residential building permits to Palestinians, and demolish Palestinian 
> homes that are built without permits. None of these strictures is 
> imposed on Jews. According to ICAHD, the housing shortage in 
> Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is approximately 25,000 units, 
> and 2,000 demolition orders are pending.
> 
> Halper has written that the human suffering involved in the 
> destruction of a family home is incalculable. A home "is one's symbolic 
> center, the site of one's most intimate personal life and an expression 
> of one's status. It is a refuge, it is the physical representation of 
> the family,maintainingcontinuity on one's ancestral land." Land 
> expropriation is "an attack on one's very being and identity." Zionist 
> governments, past and present, have understood this well, although not 
> with the compassion or empathy that Halper conveys, and this attack on 
> the "very being and identity" of non-Jews has been precisely the 
> animating force behind Zionism.
> 
> Zionism's racism has, of course, been fundamental to Israel itself 
> since its establishment in 1948. The Israeli government pursues 
> policies against its own Bedouin minority very similar to its actions 
> in the occupied territories. The Bedouin population has been forcibly 
> relocated and squeezed into small areas in the Negev, again with the 
> intent of forcing an exodus, and half of the 140,000 Bedouin in the 
> Negev live in villages that the Israeli government does not recognize 
> and does not provide services for. Every Bedouin home in an 
> unrecognized village is slated for demolition; all homes, and the very 
> presence of Bedouin in them, are officially illegal.
> 
> The problem of the Bedouins' unrecognized villages is only the partial 
> evidence of a racist policy that has prevailed since Israel's 
> foundation. After Zionist/Israeli leaders assured that the non-Jews (i.
> e., the Palestinians) making up the majority of Palestine's population 
> (a two-thirds majority at the time) departed the scene in 1948, Israeli 
> governments institutionalized favoritism toward Jews by law. As a 
> Zionist state, Israel has always identified itself as the state of the 
> Jews: as a state not of its Jewish and Palestinian citizens, but of all 
> Jews everywhere in the world. The institutions of state guarantee the 
> rights of and provide benefits for Jews. The Law of Return gives 
> automatic citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world, but to no 
> other people. Some 92 percent of the land of Israel is state land, held 
> by the Jewish National Fund "in trust" for the Jewish people; 
> Palestinians may not purchase this land, even though most of it was 
> Palestinian land before 1948, and in most instances they may not even 
> lease the land. Both the Jewish National Fund, which deals with land 
> acquisition and development, and the Jewish Agency, which deals 
> primarily with Jewish immigration and immigrant absorption, have 
> existed since before the state's establishment and now perform their 
> duties specifically for Jews under an official mandate from the Israeli 
> government.
> 
> Creating Enemies
> 
> Although few dare to give the reality of house demolitions and state 
> institutions favoring Jews the label of racism, the phenomenon this 
> reality describes is unmistakably racist. There is no other term for a 
> process by which one people can achieve the essence of its political 
> philosophy only by suppressing another people, by which one people 
> guarantees its perpetual numerical superiority and its overwhelming 
> predominance over another people through a deliberate process of 
> repression and dispossession of those people. From the beginning, 
> Zionism has been based on the supremacy of the Jewish people, whether 
> this predominance was to be exercised in a full-fledged state or in 
> some other kind of political entity, and Zionism could never have 
> survived or certainly thrived in Palestine without ridding that land of 
> most of its native population. The early Zionists themselves knew this 
> (as did the Palestinians), even if naïve Americans have never quite 
> gotten it. Theodore Herzl, father of Zionism, talked from the beginning 
> of "spiriting" the native Palestinians out and across the border; 
> discussion of "transfer" was common among the Zionist leadership in 
> Palestine in the 1930s; talk of transfer is common today.
> 
> There has been a logical progression to the development of Zionism, 
> leading inevitably to general acceptance of the sense that, because 
> Jewish needs are paramount, Jews themselves are paramount. Zionism grew 
> out of the sense that Jews needed a refuge from persecution, which led 
> in turn to the belief that the refuge could be truly secure only if 
> Jews guaranteed their own safety, which meant that the refuge must be 
> exclusively or at least overwhelmingly Jewish, which meant in turn that 
> Jews and their demands were superior, taking precedence over any other 
> interests within that refuge. The mindset that in U.S. public discourse 
> tends to view the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from a perspective 
> almost exclusively focused on Israel arises out of this progression of 
> Zionist thinking. By the very nature of a mindset, virtually no one 
> examines the assumptions on which the Zionist mindset is based, and few 
> recognize the racist base on which it rests.
> 
> Israeli governments through the decades have never been so innocent. 
> Many officials in the current right-wing government are blatantly 
> racist. Israel's outspoken education minister, Limor Livnat, spelled 
> out the extreme right-wing defense of Zionism a year ago, when the 
> government proposed to legalize the right of Jewish communities in 
> Israel to exclude non-Jews. Livnat justified Israel's racism as a 
> matter of Jewish self-preservation. "We're involved here," she said in 
> a radio interview, "in a struggle for the existence of the State of 
> Israel as the state of the Jews, as opposed tothose who want to force 
> us to be a state of all its citizens." Israel is not "just another 
> state like all the other states," she protested. "We are not just a 
> state of all its citizens."
> 
> Livnat cautioned that Israel must be very watchful lest it find in 
> another few years that the Galilee and the Negev, two areas inside 
> Israel with large Arab populations, are "filled with Arab communities." 
> To emphasize the point, she reiterated that Israel's "special purpose 
> is our character as a Jewish state, our desire to preserve a Jewish 
> community and Jewish majority hereso that it does not become a state of 
> all its citizens." Livnat was speaking of Jewish self-preservation not 
> in terms of saving the Jews or Israel from a territorial threat of 
> military invasion by a marauding neighbor state, but in terms of 
> preserving Jews from the mere existence of another people within 
> spitting distance.
> 
> Most Zionists of a more moderate stripe might shudder at the 
> explicitness of Livnat's message and deny that Zionism is really like 
> this. But in fact this properly defines the racism that necessarily 
> underlies Zionism. Most centrist and leftist Zionists deny the reality 
> of Zionism's racism by trying to portray Zionism as a democratic system 
> and manufacturing enemies in order to be able to sustain the inherent 
> contradiction and hide or excuse the racism behind Zionism's drive for 
> predominance.
> 
> Indeed, the most pernicious aspect of a political philosophy like 
> Zionism that masquerades as democratic is that it requires an enemy in 
> order to survive and, where an enemy does not already exist, it 
> requires that one be created. In order to justify racist repression and 
> dispossession, particularly in a system purporting to be democratic, 
> those being repressed and displaced must be portrayed as murderous and 
> predatory. And in order to keep its own population in line, to prevent 
> a humane people from objecting to their own government's repressive 
> policies, it requires that fear be instilled in the population: fear of 
> "the other," fear of the terrorist, fear of the Jew-hater. The Jews of 
> Israel must always be made to believe that they are the preyed-upon. 
> This justifies having forced these enemies to leave, it justifies 
> discriminating against those who remained, it justifies denying 
> democratic rights to those who later came under Israel's control in the 
> occupied territories.
> 
> Needing an enemy has meant that Zionism has from the beginning had to 
> create myths about Palestinians, painting Palestinians and all Arabs as 
> immutably hostile and intransigent. Thus the myth that in 1948 
> Palestinians left Palestine so that Arab armies could throw the Jews 
> into the sea; thus the continuing myth that Palestinians remain 
> determined to destroy Israel. Needing an enemy means that Zionism, as 
> one veteran Israeli peace activist recently put it, has removed the 
> Palestinians from history. Thus the myths that there is no such thing 
> as a Palestinian, or that Palestinians all immigrated in modern times 
> from other Arab countries, or that Jordan is Palestine and Palestinians 
> should find their state there.
> 
> Needing an enemy means that Zionism has had to make its negotiating 
> partner into a terrorist. It means that, for its own preservation, 
> Zionism has had to devise a need to ignore its partner/enemy or expel 
> him or assassinate him. It means that Zionism has had to reject any 
> conciliatory effort by the Palestinians and portray them as "never 
> missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to make peace. This 
> includes in particular rejecting that most conciliatory gesture, the 
> PLO's decision in 1988 to recognize Israel's existence, relinquish 
> Palestinian claims to the three-quarters of Palestine lying inside 
> Israel's pre-1967 borders, and even recognize Israel's "right" to exist 
> there.
> 
> Needing an enemy means, ultimately, that Zionism had to create the 
> myth of the "generous offer" at the Camp David summit in July 2000. It 
> was Zionist racism that painted the Palestinians as hopelessly 
> intransigent for refusing Israel's supposedly generous offer, actually 
> an impossible offer that would have maintained Zionism's hold on the 
> occupied territories and left the Palestinians with a disconnected, 
> indefensible, non-viable state. Then, when the intifada erupted (after 
> Palestinian demonstrators threw stones at Israeli police and the police 
> responded by shooting several demonstrators to death), it was Zionist 
> racism speaking when Israel put out the line that it was under siege 
> and in a battle for its very survival with Palestinians intent on 
> destroying it. When a few months later the issue of Palestinian 
> refugees and their "right of return" arose publicly, it was Zionist 
> racism speaking when Israel and its defenders, ignoring the several 
> ways in which Palestinian negotiators signaled their readiness to 
> compromise this demand, propagated the view that this too was intended 
> as a way to destroy Israel, by flooding it with non-Jews and destroying 
> its Jewish character.
> 
> The Zionist Dilemma
> 
> The supposed threat from "the other" is the eternal refuge of the 
> majority of Israelis and Israeli supporters in the United States. The 
> common line is that "We Israelis and friends of Israel long for peace, 
> we support Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, we have 
> always supported giving the Palestinians self-government. But 'they' 
> hate us, they want to destroy Israel. Wasn't this obvious when Arafat 
> turned his back on Israel's generous offer? Wasn't this obvious when 
> Arafat started the intifada? Wasn't this obvious when Arafat demanded 
> that the Palestinians be given the right of return, which would destroy 
> Israel as a Jewish state? We have already made concession after 
> concession. How can we give them any further concessions when they 
> would only fight for more and more until Israel is gone?" This line 
> relieves Israel of any responsibility to make concessions or move 
> toward serious negotiations; it relieves Israelis of any need to treat 
> Palestinians as equals; it relieves Israelis and their defenders of any 
> need to think; it justifies racism, while calling it something else.
> 
> Increasing numbers of Israelis themselves (some of whom have long been 
> non-Zionists, some of whom are only now beginning to see the problem 
> with Zionism) are recognizing the inherent racism of their nation's 
> raison d'etre. During the years of the peace process, and indeed for 
> the last decade and a half since the PLO formally recognized Israel's 
> existence, the Israeli left could ignore the problems of Zionism while 
> pursuing efforts to promote the establishment of an independent 
> Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that would coexist with 
> Israel. Zionism continued to be more or less a non-issue: Israel could 
> organize itself in any way it chose inside its own borders, and the 
> Palestinian state could fulfill Palestinian national aspirations inside 
> its new borders.
> 
> Few of those nettlesome issues surrounding Zionism, such as how much 
> democracy Zionism can allow to non-Jews without destroying its reason 
> for being, would arise in a two-state situation. The issue of Zionism's 
> responsibility for the Palestinians' dispossession could also be put 
> aside. As Haim Hanegbi, a non-Zionist Israeli who recently went back to 
> the fold of single-state binationalism (and who is a long-time cohort 
> of Uri Avnery in the Gush Shalom movement), said in a recent interview 
> with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the promise of mutual recognition 
> offered by the Oslo peace process mesmerized him and others in the 
> peace movement and so "in the mid-1990s I had second thoughts about my 
> traditional [binational] approach. I didn't think it was my task to go 
> to Ramallah and present the Palestinians with the list of Zionist 
> wrongs and tell them not to forget what our fathers did to their 
> fathers." Nor were the Palestinians themselves reminding Zionists of 
> these wrongs at the time.
> 
> As new wrongs in the occupied territories increasingly recall old 
> wrongs from half a century ago, however, and as Zionism finds that it 
> cannot cope with end-of-conflict demands like the Palestinians' 
> insistence that Israel accept their right of return by acknowledging 
> its role in their dispossession, more and more Israelis are coming to 
> accept the reality that Zionism can never escape its past. It is 
> becoming increasingly clear to many Israelis that Israel has absorbed 
> so much of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem into itself that the 
> Jewish and the Palestinian peoples can never be separated fairly. The 
> separation wall, says Hanegbi, "is the great despairing solution of the 
> Jewish-Zionist society. It is the last desperate act of those who 
> cannot confront the Palestinian issue. Of those who are compelled to 
> push the Palestinian issue out of their lives and out of their 
> consciousness." For Hanegbi, born in Palestine before 1948, 
> Palestinians "were always part of my landscape," and without them, 
> "this is a barren country, a disabled country."
> 
> Old-line Zionist Meron Benvenisti, who has also moved to support for 
> binationalism, used almost identical metaphors in a Ha'aretz interview 
> run alongside Hanegbi's. Also Palestine-born and a contemporary of 
> Hanegbi, Benvenisti believes "this is a country in which there were 
> always Arabs. This is a country in which the Arabs are the landscape, 
> the natives.I don't see myself living here without them. In my eyes, 
> without Arabs this is a barren land."
> 
> Both men discuss the evolution of their thinking over the decades, and 
> both describe a period in which, after the triumph of Zionism, they 
> unthinkingly accepted its dispossession of the Palestinians. Each man 
> describes the Palestinians simply disappearing when he was an 
> adolescent ("They just sort of evaporated," says Hanegbi), and 
> Benvenisti recalls a long period in which the Palestinian "tragedy 
> simply did not penetrate my consciousness." But both speak in very un-
> Zionist terms of equality. Benvenisti touches on the crux of the 
> Zionist dilemma. "This is where I am different from my friends in the 
> left," he says, "because I am truly a native son of immigrants, who is 
> drawn to the Arab culture and the Arabic language because it is here. 
> It is the land.Whereas the right, certainly, but the left too hates 
> Arabs. The Arabs bother them; they complicate things. The subject 
> generates moral questions and that generates cultural unease."
> 
> Hanegbi goes farther. "I am not a psychologist," he says, "but I think 
> that everyone who lives with the contradictions of Zionism condemns 
> himself to protracted madness. It's impossible to live like this. It's 
> impossible to live with such a tremendous wrong. It's impossible to 
> live with such conflicting moral criteria. When I see not only the 
> settlements and the occupation and the suppression, but now also the 
> insane wall that the Israelis are trying to hide behind, I have to 
> conclude that there is something very deep here in our attitude to the 
> indigenous people of this land that drives us out of our minds."
> 
> While some thoughtful Israelis like these men struggle with 
> philosophical questions of existence and identity and the collective 
> Jewish conscience, few American defenders of Israel seem troubled by 
> such deep issues. Racism is often banal. Most of those who practice it, 
> and most of those who support Israel as a Zionist state, would be 
> horrified to be accused of racism, because their racist practices have 
> become commonplace. They do not even think about what they do. We 
> recently encountered a typical American supporter of Israel who would 
> have argued vigorously if we had accused her of racism. During a 
> presentation we were giving to a class, this (non-Jewish) woman rose to 
> ask a question that went roughly like this: "I want to ask about the 
> failure of the other Arabs to take care of the Palestinians. I must say 
> I sympathize with Israel because Israel simply wants to have a secure 
> state, but the other Arabs have refused to take the Palestinians in, 
> and so they sit in camps and their hostility toward Israel just 
> festers."
> 
> This is an extremely common American, and Israeli, perception, the 
> idea being that if the Arab states would only absorb the Palestinians 
> so that they became Lebanese or Syrians or Jordanians, they would 
> forget about being Palestinian, forget that Israel had displaced and 
> dispossessed them, and forget about "wanting to destroy Israel." Israel 
> would then be able simply to go about its own business and live in 
> peace, as it so desperately wants to do. This woman's assumption was 
> that it is acceptable for Israel to have established itself as a Jewish 
> state at the expense of (i.e., after the ethnic cleansing of) the 
> land's non-Jewish inhabitants, that any Palestinian objection to this 
> reality is illegitimate, and that all subsequent animosity toward 
> Israel is ultimately the fault of neighboring Arab states who failed to 
> smother the Palestinians' resistance by anesthetizing them to their 
> plight and erasing their identity and their collective memory of 
> Palestine.
> 
> When later in the class the subject arose of Israel ending the 
> occupation, this same woman spoke up to object that, if Israel did give 
> up control over the West Bank and Gaza, it would be economically 
> disadvantaged, at least in the agricultural sector. "Wouldn't this 
> leave Israel as just a desert?" she wondered. Apart from the fact that 
> the answer is a clear "no" (Israel's agricultural capability inside its 
> 1967 borders is quite high, and most of Israel is not desert), the 
> woman's question was again based on the automatic assumption that 
> Israel's interests take precedence over those of anyone else and that, 
> in order to enhance its own agricultural economy (or, presumably, for 
> any other perceived gain), Israel has the right to conquer and take 
> permanent possession of another people's land.
> 
> The notion that the Jewish/Zionist state of Israel has a greater right 
> to possess the land, or a greater right to security, or a greater right 
> to a thriving economy, than the people who are native to that land is 
> extremely racist, but this woman would probably object strenuously to 
> having it pointed out that this is a Jewish supremacist viewpoint 
> identical to past justifications for white South Africa's apartheid 
> regime and to the rationale for all European colonial (racist) systems 
> that exploited the human and natural resources of Africa, the Middle 
> East, and Asia over the centuries for the sole benefit of the 
> colonizers. Racism must necessarily be blind to its own immorality; the 
> burden of conscience is otherwise too great. This is the banality of 
> evil.
> 
> (Unconsciously, of course, many Americans also seem to believe that 
> the shameful policies of the U.S. government toward Native Americans 
> somehow make it acceptable for the government of Israel to pursue 
> equally shameful policies toward the Palestinians. The U.S. needs to 
> face its racist policies head on as much as it needs to confront the 
> racism of its foremost partner, Israel.)
> 
> This woman's view is so very typical, something you hear constantly in 
> casual conversation and casual encounters at social occasions, that it 
> hardly seems significant. But this very banality is precisely the evil 
> of it; what is evil is the very fact that it is "hardly significant" 
> that Zionism by its nature is racist and that this reality goes 
> unnoticed by decent people who count themselves defenders of Israel. 
> The universal acceptability of a system that is at heart racist but 
> proclaims itself to be benign, even noble, and the license this 
> acceptability gives Israel to oppress another people, are striking 
> testimony to the selectivity of the human conscience and its general 
> disinterest in human questions of justice and human rights except when 
> these are politically useful.
> 
> Countering the Counter-Arguments
> 
> To put some perspective on this issue, a few clarifying questions must 
> be addressed. Many opponents of the occupation would argue that, 
> although Israel's policies in the occupied territories are racist in 
> practice, they are an abuse of Zionism and that racism is not inherent 
> in it. This seems to be the position of several prominent commentators 
> who have recently denounced Israel severely for what it does in the 
> West Bank and Gaza but fail to recognize the racism in what Israel did 
> upon its establishment in 1948. In a recent bitter denunciation of 
> Zionist policies today, Avraham Burg, a former Knesset speaker, 
> lamented that Zionism had become corrupted by ruling as an occupier 
> over another people, and he longed for the days of Israel's youth when 
> "our national destiny" was "as a light unto the nations and a society 
> of peace, justice and equality." These are nice words, and it is 
> heartening to hear credible mainstream Israelis so clearly denouncing 
> the occupation, but Burg's assumption that before the occupation 
> Zionism followed "a just path" and always had "an ethical leadership" 
> ignores the unjust and unethical policy of ethnic cleansing that 
> allowed Israel to become a so-called Jewish democracy in the first 
> place.
> 
> Acknowledging the racist underpinnings of an ideology so long held up 
> as the embodiment of justice and ethics appears to be impossible for 
> many of the most intellectual of Israelis and Israeli defenders. Many 
> who strongly oppose Israel's policies in the occupied territories 
> still, despite their opposition, go through considerable contortions to 
> "prove" that Israel itself is not racist. Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor 
> of the Jewish magazine Tikkun and a long-time opponent of the 
> occupation, rejects the notion that Zionism is racist on the narrow 
> grounds that Jewishness is only a religious identity and that Israel 
> welcomes Jews of all races and ethnicities and therefore cannot be 
> called racist. But this confuses the point. Preference toward a 
> particular religion, which is the only aspect of racism that Lerner has 
> addressed and which he acknowledges occurs in Israel, is no more 
> acceptable than preference on ethnic grounds.
> 
> But most important, racism has to do primarily with those 
> discriminated against, not with those who do the discriminating. Using 
> Lerner's reasoning, apartheid South Africa might also not be considered 
> racist because it welcomed whites of all ethnicities. But its inherent 
> evil lay in the fact that its very openness to whites discriminated 
> against blacks. Discrimination against any people on the basis of 
> "race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin" is the major 
> characteristic of racism as the UN defines it. Discrimination against 
> Palestinians and other non-Jews, simply because they are not Jews, is 
> the basis on which Israel constitutes itself. Lerner seems to believe 
> that, because the Palestinian citizens of Israel have the vote and are 
> represented in the Knesset, there is no racial or ethnic discrimination 
> in Israel. But, apart from skipping over the institutional racism that 
> keeps Palestinian Israelis in perpetual second-class citizenship, this 
> argument ignores the more essential reality that Israel reached its 
> present ethnic balance, the point at which it could comfortably allow 
> Palestinians to vote without endangering its Jewish character, only 
> because in 1948 three-quarters of a million Palestinians were forced to 
> leave what became the Jewish state of Israel.
> 
> More questions need to be addressed. Is every Israeli or every Jew a 
> racist? Most assuredly not, as the examples of Jeff Halper, Haim 
> Hanegbi, Meron Benvenisti, and many others like them strikingly 
> illustrate. Is every Zionist a racist? Probably not, if one accepts 
> ignorance as an exonerating factor. No doubt the vast majority of 
> Israelis, most very good-hearted people, are not consciously racist but 
> "go along" unquestioningly, having been born into or moved to an 
> apparently democratic state and never examined the issue closely, and 
> having bought into the line fed them by every Israeli government from 
> the beginning, that Palestinians and other Arabs are enemies and that 
> whatever actions Israel takes against Palestinians are necessary to 
> guarantee the personal security of Israelis.
> 
> Is it anti-Semitic to say that Zionism is a racist system? Certainly 
> not. Political criticism is not ethnic or religious hatred. Stating a 
> reality about a government's political system or its political conduct 
> says nothing about the qualities of its citizens or its friends. Racism 
> is not a part of the genetic makeup of Jews, any more than it was a 
> part of the genetic makeup of Germans when Hitler ran a racist regime. 
> Nor do Zionism's claim to speak for all Jews everywhere and Israel's 
> claim to be the state of all Jews everywhere make all Jews Zionists. 
> Zionism did not ask for or receive the consent of universal Jewry to 
> speak in its name; therefore labeling Zionism as racist does not label 
> all Jews and cannot be called anti-Semitic.
> 
> Why It Matters
> 
> Are there other racist systems, and are there governing systems and 
> political philosophies, racist or not, that are worse than Zionism? Of 
> course, but this fact does not relieve Zionism of culpability. (Racism 
> obviously exists in the United States and in times past was pervasive 
> throughout the country, but, unlike Israel, the U.S. is not a racist 
> governing system, based on racist foundations and depending for its 
> raison d'etre on a racist philosophy.) Many defenders of Israel 
> (Michael Lerner and columnist Thomas Friedman come to mind) contend 
> that when Israel is "singled out" for criticism not also leveled at 
> oppressive regimes elsewhere, the attackers are exhibiting a special 
> hatred for Jews. Anyone who does not also criticize Saddam Hussein or 
> Kim Jong Il or Bashar al-Assad for atrocities far greater than 
> Israel's, they charge, is showing that he is less concerned to uphold 
> absolute values than to tear down Israel because it is Jewish. But this 
> charge ignores several factors that demand criticism of Zionist racism. 
> First, because the U.S. government supports Zionism and its racist 
> policy on a continuing basis and props up Zionism's military machine 
> with massive amounts of military aid, it is wholly appropriate for 
> Americans (indeed, it is incumbent on Americans) to call greater 
> attention to Zionism's racism than, for instance, to North Korea's 
> appalling cruelties. The United States does not assist in North Korea's 
> atrocities, but it does underwrite Zionism's brutality.
> 
> There is also a strong moral reason for denouncing Zionism as racist. 
> Zionism advertises itself, and actually congratulates itself, as a 
> uniquely moral system that stands as a "light unto the nations," 
> putting itself forward as in a real sense the very embodiment of the 
> values Americans hold dear. Many Zionist friends of Israel would have 
> us believe that Zionism is us, and in many ways it is: most Americans, 
> seeing Israelis as "like us," have grown up with the notion that Israel 
> is a noble enterprise and that the ideology that spawned it is of the 
> highest moral order. Substantial numbers of Americans, non-Jews as well 
> as Jews, feel an emotional and psychological bond with Israel and 
> Zionism that goes far beyond the ties to any other foreign ally. One 
> scholar, describing the U.S.-Israeli tie, refers to Israel as part of 
> the "being" of the United States. Precisely because of the intimacy of 
> the relationship, it is imperative that Zionism's hypocrisy be exposed, 
> that Americans not give aid and comfort to, or even remain associated 
> with, a morally repugnant system that uses racism to exalt one people 
> over all others while masquerading as something better than it is. The 
> United States can remain supportive of Israel as a nation without any 
> longer associating itself with Israel's racism.
> 
> Finally, there are critical practical reasons for acknowledging 
> Zionism's racism and enunciating a U.S. policy clearly opposed to 
> racism everywhere and to the repressive Israeli policies that arise 
> from Zionist racism. Now more than at any time since the United States 
> positioned itself as an enthusiastic supporter of Zionism, U.S. 
> endorsement, and indeed facilitation, of Israel's racist policies put 
> this country at great risk for terrorism on a massive scale. Terrorism 
> arises, not as President Bush would have us believe from "hatred of our 
> liberties," but from hatred of our oppressive, killing policies 
> throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, and in a major way from our 
> support for Israel's severe oppression of the Palestinians. Terrorism 
> is never acceptable, but it is explainable, and it is usually 
> avoidable. Supporting the oppression of Palestinians that arises from 
> Israel's racism only encourages terrorism.
> 
> It is time to begin openly expressing revulsion at the racism against 
> Palestinians that the United States has been supporting for decades. It 
> is time to sound an alarm about the near irreversibility of Israel's 
> absorption of the occupied territories into Israel, about the fact that 
> this arises from a fundamentally racist ideology, about the fact that 
> this racism is leading to the ethnicide of an entire nation of people, 
> and about the fact that it is very likely to produce horrific terrorist 
> retaliation against the U.S. because of its unquestioning support. Many 
> who are intimately familiar with the situation on the ground are 
> already sounding an alarm, usually without using the word racism but 
> using other inflammatory terms. Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen 
> recently observed that "Israel's atrocities have now intensified to an 
> extent unimaginable in previous decades." Land confiscation, curfew, 
> the "gradual pushing of Palestinians from areas designated for Jews" 
> have accompanied the occupation all along, he wrote, but the level of 
> oppression now "is quite another story.[This is] an eliminationist 
> policy on the verge of genocide."
> 
> The Foundation for Middle East Peace, a Washington-based institution 
> that has tracked Israeli settlement-building for decades, came to much 
> the same conclusion, although using less attention-getting language, in 
> its most recent bimonthly newsletter. Israel, it wrote, is "undertaking 
> massive, unprecedented efforts beyond the construction of new 
> settlement housing, which proceeds apace, to put the question of its 
> control of these areas beyond the reach of diplomacy." Israel's 
> actions, particularly the "relentless" increase in territorial control, 
> the foundation concluded, have "compromised not only the prospect for 
> genuine Palestinian independence but also, in ways not seen in Israel's 
> 36-year occupation, the very sustainability of everyday Palestinian 
> life."
> 
> It signals a remarkable change when Israeli commentators and normally 
> staid foundations begin using terms like "unprecedented," "unimaginable 
> in previous decades," "in ways not seen in Israel's 36-year 
> occupation," even words like "eliminationist" and "genocide." While the 
> Bush administration, every Democratic presidential candidate 
> (including, to some degree, even the most progressive), Congress, and 
> the mainstream U.S. media blithely ignore the extent of the destruction 
> in Palestine, more and more voices outside the United States and 
> outside the mainstream in the U.S. are finally coming to recognize that 
> Israel is squeezing the life out of the Palestinian nation. Those who 
> see this reality should begin to expose not only the reality but the 
> racism that is at its root.
> 
> Some very thoughtful Israelis, including Haim Hanegbi, Meron 
> Benvenisti, and activists like Jeff Halper, have come to the conclusion 
> that Israel has absorbed so much of the occupied territories that a 
> separate, truly independent Palestinian state can never be established 
> in the West Bank and Gaza. They now regard a binational solution as the 
> only way. In theory, this would mean an end to Zionism (and Zionist 
> racism) by allowing the Jewish and the Palestinian peoples to form a 
> single secular state in all of Palestine in which they live together in 
> equality and democracy, in which neither people is superior, in which 
> neither people identifies itself by its nationality or its religion but 
> rather simply by its citizenship. Impossible? Idealized? Pie-in-the-
> sky? Probably so but maybe not.
> 
> Other Israeli and Jewish activists and thinkers, such as Israel's Uri 
> Avnery and CounterPunch contributor Michael Neumann, have cogently 
> challenged the wisdom and the realism of trying to pursue binationalism 
> at the present time. But it is striking that their arguments center on 
> what will best assure a decent outcome for Palestinians. In fact, what 
> is most heartening about the newly emerging debate over the one- versus 
> the two-state solution is the fact that intelligent, compassionate 
> people have at long last been able to move beyond addressing Jewish 
> victimhood and how best to assure a future for Jews, to begin debating 
> how best to assure a future for both the Palestinian and the Jewish 
> people. Progressives in the U.S., both supporters and opponents of 
> present U.S. policies toward Israel, should encourage similar debate in 
> this country. If this requires loudly attacking AIPAC and its 
> intemperate charges of anti-Semitism, so be it.
> 
> We recently had occasion to raise the notion of Israeli racism, using 
> the actual hated word, at a gathering of about 25 or 30 (mostly) 
> progressive (mostly) Jews, and came away with two conclusions: 1) it is 
> a hard concept to bring people to face, but 2) we were not run out of 
> the room and, after the initial shock of hearing the word racist used 
> in connection with Zionism, most people in the room, with only a few 
> exceptions, took the idea aboard. Many specifically thanked us for what 
> we had said. One man, raised as a Jew and now a Muslim, came up to us 
> afterward to say that he thinks Zionism is nationalist rather than 
> racist (to which we argued that nationalism was the motivation but 
> racism is the resulting reality), but he acknowledged, with apparent 
> approbation, that referring to racism had a certain shock effect. Shock 
> effect is precisely what we wanted. The United States' complacent 
> support for everything Israel does will not be altered without shock.
> 
> When a powerful state kills hundreds of civilians from another ethnic 
> group; confiscates their land; builds vast housing complexes on that 
> land for the exclusive use of its own nationals; builds roads on that 
> land for the exclusive use of its own nationals; prevents expansion of 
> the other people's neighborhoods and towns; demolishes on a massive 
> scale houses belonging to the other people, in order either to prevent 
> that people's population growth, to induce them "voluntarily" to leave 
> their land altogether, or to provide "security" for its own nationals; 
> imprisons the other people in their own land behind checkpoints, 
> roadblocks, ditches, razor wire, electronic fences, and concrete walls; 
> squeezes the other people into ever smaller, disconnected segments of 
> land; cripples the productive capability of the other people by 
> destroying or separating them from their agricultural land, destroying 
> or confiscating their wells, preventing their industrial expansion, and 
> destroying their businesses; imprisons the leadership of the other 
> people and threatens to expel or assassinate that leadership; destroys 
> the security forces and the governing infrastructure of the other 
> people; destroys an entire population's census records, land registry 
> records, and school records; vandalizes the cultural headquarters and 
> the houses of worship of the other people by urinating, defecating, and 
> drawing graffiti on cultural and religious artifacts and symbols ­ when 
> one people does these things to another, a logical person can draw only 
> one conclusion: the powerful state is attempting to destroy the other 
> people, to push them into the sea, to ethnically cleanse them.
> 
> These kinds of atrocities, and particularly the scale of the 
> repression, did not spring full-blown out of some terrorist 
> provocations by Palestinians. These atrocities grew out of a political 
> philosophy that says whatever advances the interests of Jews is 
> acceptable as policy. This is a racist philosophy.
> 
> What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is not genocide, it is not a 
> holocaust, but it is, unmistakably, ethnicide. It is, unmistakably, 
> racism. Israel worries constantly, and its American friends worry, 
> about the destruction of Israel. We are all made to think always about 
> the existential threat to Israel, to the Jewish people. But the nation 
> in imminent danger of elimination today is not Israel but the 
> Palestinians. Such a policy of national destruction must not be allowed 
> to stand.
> 
> -----
> 
> * Assuming, according to the scenario put forth by our Israeli-
> American friend, that Palestinians had accepted the UN-mandated 
> establishment of a Jewish state in 1948, that no war had ensued, and 
> that no Palestinians had left Palestine, Israel would today encompass 
> only the 55 percent of Palestine allocated to it by the UN partition 
> resolution, not the 78 percent it possessed after successfully 
> prosecuting the 1948 war. It would have no sovereignty over Jerusalem, 
> which was designated by the UN as a separate international entity not 
> under the sovereignty of any nation. Its 5.4 million Jews (assuming the 
> same magnitude of Jewish immigration and natural increase) would be 
> sharing the state with approximately five million Palestinians 
> (assuming the same nine-fold rate of growth among the 560,000 
> Palestinians who inhabited the area designated for the Jewish state as 
> has occurred in the Palestinian population that actually remained in 
> Israel in 1948). Needless to say, this small, severely overcrowded, 
> binational state would not be the comfortable little Jewish democracy 
> that our friend seems to have envisioned.
> 
> Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis 
> side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as 
> National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of 
> Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast 
> Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director 
> of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person 
> unit.
> 
> Kathleen Christison also worked in the CIA, retiring in 1979. Since 
> then she has been mainly preoccupied by the issue of Palestine. She is 
> the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.
> 
> They are also contributors to CounterPunch's hot new book: The 
> Politics of Anti-Semitism.
> 
> The Christison's can be reached at: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weekend Edition Features for Oct. 25 / 26, 2003
> 
> Saul Landau
> Cui Bono? The Cuba Embargo as Rip Off
> 
> Noam Chomsky
> Empire of the Men of Best Quality
> 
> Bruce Jackson
> Midge Decter and the Taxi Driver
> 
> Brian Cloughley
> "Mow the Whole Place Down"
> 
> John Stanton
> The Pentagon's Love Affair with Land Mines
> 
> William S. Lind
> Bush's Bizarre Korean Gambit
> 
> Ben Tripp
> The Brown Paste on Bush's Shoes
> 
> Christopher Brauchli
> Divine Hatred
> 
> Dave Zirin
> An Interview with John Carlos
> 
> Agustin Velloso
> Oil in Equatorial Guinea: Where Trickle Down Doesn't Trickle
> 
> Josh Frank
> Howard Dean and Affirmative Action
> 
> Ron Jacobs
> Standing Up to El Diablo: the 1981 Blockade of Diablo Canyon
> 
> Strickler / Hermach
> Liar, Liar Forests on Fire
> 
> David Vest
> Jimmy T99 Nelson, a Blues Legend and the Songs that Made Him Famous
> 
> Adam Engel
> America, What It Is
> 
> Dr. Susan Block
> Christy Canyon, a Life in Porn
> 
> Poets' Basement
> Greeder, Albert & Guthrie
> 
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> 
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤